Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 145 (HP)

State Of H. P. v. Puran Chand

2016-02-27

P.S.RANA, SANJAY KAROL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. - In connection with FIR No. 102/98, dated 8.7.1998, Police Station, Shahpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, which was registered on a complaint filed by Smt. Ishroo Devi (PW-1), wife of Harnam Singh (PW-7), present respondents Puran Chand and Simrita Devi, and co-accused Nisha Devi (hereinafter referred to as the accused), were charged to face trial for commission of offences, punishable under the provisions of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Vide judgment dated 3.2.2003/4.2.2003, trial Court acquitted accused Nisha Devi, but however, convicted accused Puran Chand and Simrita Devi and sentenced both of them as under: Offence Imprisonment 420 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and fine of Rs. 500/- each, and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 467 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and fine of Rs. 500/- each, and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 468 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and fine of Rs. 500/- each, and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 471 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and fine of Rs. 500/- each, and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 120-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and fine of Rs. 500/- each, and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 2. In an appeal filed by the convicts/accused Puran Chand and Simrita Devi, the lower Appellate Court (Fast Track Court), Kangra at Dharamshala, vide judgment dated 30.4.2009, passed in Crl. RBT Appeal No.6-D/X/2004/03, titled as Puran Chand and another v. Simrita Devi, has reversed the findings of fact, conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court, correctness whereof is the subject matter of the present appeal. 3. In short, it is the case of prosecution that one Pohla Ram was possessed of immoveable property. He died on 5.11.1995, leaving behind his LRs, i.e. widow Kewlo Devi and two daughters Simrita Devi and Nisha Devi. The latter was married to accused Puran Chand. Both the accused set up a Will in their favour, which was allegedly executed by Pohla Ram. 4. He died on 5.11.1995, leaving behind his LRs, i.e. widow Kewlo Devi and two daughters Simrita Devi and Nisha Devi. The latter was married to accused Puran Chand. Both the accused set up a Will in their favour, which was allegedly executed by Pohla Ram. 4. According to the prosecution, Will was forged by the accused, as is apparent from the fact that the Non Judicial stamp paper on which the said Will dated 3.1.1991 stood scribed, was actually issued by the Treasury only on 29.6.1991. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, we are of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out in the present appeal. 6. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged offence. 7. In Prandas v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 36 , Constitution Bench of the apex Court, has held as under: "(6) It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court has no power under Section 417, Criminal P.c., to reverse a judgment of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate Court has in some way or other misdirected itself so as to produce a miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, the true position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in Sheo Swarup v. Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) at pp.229, 230 (A), in these words: "Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognised in the administration of justice." 8. It is not in dispute that the papers, on which the Will is scribed, were issued by the Treasury on 29.6.1991. It is also not in dispute that the Will is dated 3.1.1991. But the fact of the matter is that the Will has not been proven to have been scribed by present respondents/accused, namely Puran Chand and Simrita Devi. There is yet another circumstance in favour of the present respondents. The Will stood registered on 31.12.1996, which is much after the death of deceased Pohla Ram. Possibility of the date being wrongly recorded in the Will by the scribe cannot be ruled out. That apart, Pohla Ram had two daughters, namely Simrita Devi and Nisha Devi, who are the sole beneficiaries under the Will. Even otherwise, being the surviving legal heirs, they would have inherited the property. As such there was no reason for the respondents to have set up any Will, much less forged one. 9. What is "forgery" in law is no longer res-integra. In the instant case, prosecution has failed to establish (a) intent of the accused in forging the Will, (b) the fact that the Will is scribed by the respondents/ accused herein, (c) they conspired to get it forged, (d) there is nothing on record to show whom did the accused cheat. 10. In the instant case, prosecution has failed to establish (a) intent of the accused in forging the Will, (b) the fact that the Will is scribed by the respondents/ accused herein, (c) they conspired to get it forged, (d) there is nothing on record to show whom did the accused cheat. 10. It be only observed that the FIR in question came to be registered on the asking of wife of one Harnam Singh, who claimed to have served Pohla Ram. This Harnam Singh had also set up a Will dated 3.8.1984, allegedly executed by Pohla Ram in his favour. In terms of the said Will, Pohla Ram had divested his daughters and wife from his estate. 11. Ms Anjali Soni Verma, learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record a judgment passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Cr. Case No.2-II/04/03, titled as State v. Krishan Kumar, wherein this Will set up by Shri Harnam Singh has been held to be a forged document. 12. Hence, it cannot be said that both Puran Chand and Simrita Devi are guilty of commission of offence of cheating and forgery, for there is no evidence, ocular or documentary, to such effect. 13. From the material placed on record, prosecution has failed to establish that the accused are guilty of having committed the offences, they have been charged with. The circumstances cannot be said to have been proved by unbroken chain of unimpeachable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The guilt of the accused does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt to the hilt. The chain of events does not stand conclusively established, leading only to one conclusion, i.e. guilt of the accused. Circumstances when cumulatively considered do not fully establish completion of chain of events, indicating to the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis other than the same. 14. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the first appellate Court. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. 15. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.